hiddendriver34, you mentioned earlier that Travelers tend to have more downtime and, I suppose, more opportunities for learning compared to commuters, which would be great in theory if they weren't both just scrolling through TikTok—one from their bedroom and the other on the bus. And then there’s what Susan James was saying about how kids without a car end up studying on the subway, reviewing notes, or even tackling math problems together in groups🤣 . Now, look, I’m certainly not suggesting that riding the city bus is some kind of relaxing wellness retreat, but I think we shouldn't feel this frantic need to micromanage every single minute of a commute to work or school. There are so many different schools and programs out there offering various paths, and I don't think anyone should feel forced to rule out an option right at the start just because it seems a bit too far away.
I mentioned earlier that it’s pretty straightforward if you're weighing two different general high schools against each other, or even just choosing between programs within the same school—though, let's be honest, not all high schools are created equal, regardless of what the brochures say. The real headache starts when location becomes your absolute top priority when you're looking at different specialized tracks, which, unfortunately, seems to be the case more often than I'd like to admit.
hiddendriver34 said:Look, urbantinker8, I honestly don't get where you're coming from. If a kid has an hour-long commute to school, that’s two hours gone every single day just sitting in transit. If it’s ninety minutes? That’s three hours down the drain daily. Think about what they could be doing with that extra time instead. Studying, for instance. A student who lives within walking distance of their school basically wins back all that time others waste commuting. They get their homework done early and still have plenty of free time left to actually enjoy life.
And please, don't give me that argument about being able to study on the bus or subway. It's just not realistic. During morning rush hour when everyone is heading to school, those things are packed like sardines.
Personally, I don't drive. In the winter, I take public transit to work, but once the weather warms up, I hop on my bike. The bus takes me about 25 to 30 minutes, while the bike gets me there in 15 to 20.
In fact, when we were scouting out locations to settle down, one of the absolute biggest factors for me was how close it was to my job.
The reality is that someone stuck on a long commute on a bus or train is probably just going to end up doing the exact same thing as a kid who isn't commuting, sitting on their own couch. From what I've seen over the years, there really isn't any measurable difference in success or learning outcomes between kids who have a long daily commute and those who live right near the school. Back in fifth grade, choosing where to live based on where I'd eventually work wasn't even a consideration. Jobs can change overnight, after all; I shouldn't exactly have to worry about living in the same neighborhood every single time or buying a new apartment just so I can sleep in a little longer, right?😕 It’s true—it's incredibly convenient if the school you want is just across the street, but if it’s on the other side of the city, you might just have to endure that commute for four years. Or maybe you won't. And if you don't, you might end up regretting it later because you couldn't pursue being a hairstylist since you ended up studying agriculture just because it happened to be the school you could see from your bedroom window.
There’s a subtle distinction between when location is just a factor and when it becomes absolutely decisive. I can't speak for specific people on this forum, but in my own life, I've run into plenty of situations where where someone lives ends up driving major life choices, starting all the way back in high school and continuing well into adulthood. The last thing that comes to mind involves a kid who "wasn't allowed" to attend a certain vocational school simply because it was too far from home—somewhere out in the suburbs of New York City—so they had to settle for something much closer to their high school instead. To be fair, there was definitely some bias against trade schools involved, but I suppose the distance really did play a massive role in the decision.
I just can't quite wrap my head around it—limiting your choices for schools, colleges, or even career paths just because of the convenience of the commute... 😵 It feels a bit strange, I guess. And honestly, it seems like such a waste, because I suspect a lot of high schoolers who take that "extra" free time they save by not being stuck in traffic might just end up doing absolutely nothing with it. If they’re just going to spend hours scrolling through TikTok on their couches at home anyway, they could just as easily do that on a train ride to school.
Carl Bishop2—Ivanic-Grad isn't exactly part of New York City. I'm not saying you should pick a school in a different city unless that's the only place offering the specific major or track you actually want. Even then, there's always the option of staying in a dorm.
Personally, I think the public transit in New York City is pretty terrible, but I've never even considered driving to work. In all the different places I've worked—maybe five or six locations over the years—it always seemed like I'd get there twice as fast using the subway, a bus, the train, or even just walking rather than driving. The crowds can be a real headache, sure, but the ride itself doesn't feel like wasted time, even if one way ends up taking an hour.
rowdypanther12 I guess what they're saying is... I wonder, what do you think is the right amount of lead time for a kid to wake up if they've got about an hour and forty minutes before they actually have to head out the door for school? I guess it really depends on how much of a struggle the morning routine is, maybe. 🤔
There’s just no way, theoretically speaking, that anyone would actually need an hour and forty minutes to get from one side of New York City to the other in a single direction under normal circumstances, unless we're talking about some massive, city-wide gridlock or something equally catastrophic. I suppose everything is alright. I mean, if someone really needs that much time just to get to school, I guess they might as well just roll out of bed two hours earlier and start praying to the heavens that one-way school schedules never actually become a thing.
Sarah Hall53 said:Did I ever actually say this was about the city I live in? No, I didn't. And did I say it was some unsolvable factor? Not at all. I just said—well, honestly—that it just didn't sit right with me.
I suppose you aren't. But then again, if you look back at the last few pages, there’s all this talk about how much the actual distance to the school matters, even when everything is happening within the same city limits, which I guess is a pretty massive factor that people tend to overlook.
So... I was just sitting here wondering, if we’re going to follow this logic where kids have to go through some kind of standardized testing gauntlet just to get a little extra sleep, what happens next? I mean, I guess you have to wonder if those same kids—the ones being forced into these rigid schedules just so they can function—will eventually be expected to choose their entire futures based on that same narrow set of criteria. Like, will they be picking out a college or a career path one day just by following the same repetitive patterns? It feels like it could all just become one big, predictable loop, though I might be overthinking it. I suppose you have to wonder if that should even be a deciding factor in the long run, right? I mean, personally, I don't think I could ever justify taking on some high-powered, prestigious position if it meant wasting an hour of my life every single day just sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the freeway. It seems more logical to me to just settle for a perfectly decent, average job—something that doesn't demand much—if it means I actually have the headspace to sit down and play some piano pieces when I get home. Maybe it sounds lazy to some people, but I guess having that time for myself is worth more than a fancy title. I was just thinking back to this one woman I knew from a neighborhood over in Los Angeles, and honestly, it’s kind of stayed with me. She ended up quitting her job at that 24-hour diner out in the suburbs because she just couldn't deal with the constant, endless stream of "travelers" passing through anymore—it just completely burnt her out. She ended up unemployed for about a year and a half after that, which I guess was pretty heavy considering she had two little kids to look after at the time.🤦 I suppose she probably had her own little list of approved spots back when she was in high school, too.
Sarah Hall53 said:So, my dad—bless his heart—decided I should enroll in this winter math intensive program right near the high school I was eyeing. It was only supposed to last a few days, but honestly, by the second morning, I already knew... like, I just knew deep down... that there was absolutely no way I was dragging myself out of bed at 5:00 AM just to make it to class by 8:00. I mean, come on. So, I ended up dropping the language track entirely and just signed up for the local general high school nearby instead. Much better. 😂
I mean, I honestly can't think of a single kid—and I know quite a lot of kids—who lives right here in town attending a local high school and still has to wake up three hours early just to get there. Kids living out in the suburbs or rural areas are a different story, I suppose, but for them, the commute isn't really an insurmountable obstacle, because if it were, they probably wouldn't be making that drive every single day.
So, regarding that distance issue...🙄 it’s just one more thing in a long line of topics that seem to attract way more hype and unnecessary drama than they actually deserve. I suppose I can somewhat empathize if someone finds early mornings to be a massive struggle, but everything else feels like a bit of an exaggeration, honestly. And I say that from the perspective of someone who has spent thirty years commuting through cities—taking the subway, driving, riding the light rail, catching buses, or hopping on a train—back when I was a student, then an employee, and now a parent... truthfully, those thirty minutes sitting on the train right now is probably my favorite part of the day, just letting my brain settle while I get lost in a book. It’s quite literally how I unwind. I know plenty of people who pick their schools based entirely on how close they are to where they practice sports or whatever. Personally, if I had to make that choice, I’d rather skip the training sessions altogether than compromise on the school just because of the commute. It’s not really a huge deal if you’re deciding between two decent public high schools, but it does feel a bit much when parents refuse to send their kids to the only specialized academy in town just because it’s "too far away." 🙄 But hey, I guess there's a bit of everything out there.
I honestly don't see the issue with commuting to high school.🤷 We aren't talking about Tokyo here; I can't imagine anyone living within the greater metropolitan area—and I'm not even counting those trips across the river—who actually spends three hours a day just getting to class. Besides, I know from experience how much kids just want to get away from their own backyard once they hit high school. They want to wander around the city with their friends after school or grab a coffee at a cafe that isn't just the local spot where you end up sitting right next to your dad or some neighbor.
Are you seriously planning on giving these kids a list of "approved" schools? It feels a bit like telling a family which specific grocery store they're allowed to shop at.😲
There is just so much I don't want to have to wade through here.🙄 I suppose it’s inevitable that people will let those old biases about "better" versus "worse" schools take over, maybe based on how many kids seem inspired or, conversely, how many are getting into trouble, though I’m not sure how much that actually correlates to anything real. And honestly, the whole idea that how close or far a high school is from home acts as one of these major deciding factors... I guess I’ve never quite understood why that matters so much, and I don't think I ever really will.
rowdypanther12 said:Michelle Nelson4, man, my kids will sit quietly for four hours straight, then they eat (takes a while to settle them down again), head outside for an hour, and then get right back to sitting and finishing their homework. If they power through the work quickly and my parents come over, they might squeeze in another half hour or so of playtime. So, we're looking at maybe two or three hours of play compared to the whole day at preschool? How do you even compare the two? I mean, they’ll still play, obviously, but they definitely have way less freedom than they did before starting school.
None of my kids ever managed to sit still in an after-school setting for longer than an hour, which was usually all the time allotted for homework, and that's assuming we didn't switch through three different teachers in the process. They always seemed to have some sort of constant stream of activities, sports, or special projects going on. It felt more like the fun and games you'd read about in a storybook.
Words, just empty words. Regardless of who you point the finger at, the whole thing was poorly defined from the jump—it lacked any real structure, most of it felt totally unrealistic, and it was just stuffed with meaningless corporate jargon, so it’s no surprise that things ended up being even more of a mess than anyone originally anticipated.🙂 And now, I suppose, we aren't going to be getting rid of this disaster quite so easily.
school for life—honestly, a total disaster right from the jump. man, if only everyone who stood out in the town square singing those idealistic anthems back in the day had actually realized what was coming... and so on... I guess we’re just left dealing with the mess we have now.
rowdypanther12 said:Fantasy? It’s easily my favorite genre. I’ve read just about everything—from children's books and pulp fiction to the classics and modern hits—but eventually, I landed on fantasy. And I’m not looking back. Everything else feels a bit dull to me, stuck within the same reality and the same laws of physics. With fantasy, you genuinely never know what's going to happen on the next page.
Well, that’s just your take on things. If you want my opinion, I find fantasy to be one of the most frustrating genres out there, mostly because I struggle to actually care about imaginary worlds or surreal creatures; to me, it all feels a bit silly, like a massive waste of time.🙄 I suppose the whole point is that we should have a wide variety of genres available so that we can compare them and come to our own conclusions—you forming yours and me forming mine—regarding what we actually enjoy and what we don't. We shouldn't just force a reading list filled with nothing but heavy dramas and gritty realism, but then again, we shouldn't limit ourselves strictly to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or Fantastic Beasts either. It’s about diversity, I think. And maybe fewer titles overall, provided they are high quality. By quality, I mean works that hold up based on their artistic or historical merit, their popularity, or simply how much a certain theme resonates with kids.
Susan James, I don't think anyone is actually answering your question because, honestly, there isn't some single, universal answer to be found. I mean, nobody has gone out and interviewed every single student in Rhode Island to reach any kind of statistically significant conclusion, and besides, there are just way too many variables at play to draw one definitive line through it all. It might be that some kids really lean into the creative side and can't stand traditional reading, so they actually find this specific way of tackling literature somewhat appealing. Then you have other kids who absolutely live for reading but can't stand drawing or putting together these big projects, so they end up just being completely over the whole assignment. Some people don't care for reading and they certainly don't want to be sketching anything, so they just happen to "come down with something" on the day of the assignment to avoid participating in what feels like a total circus. There’s also the kid who loves drawing and enjoys reading, for whom these types of classes are basically the absolute highlight of their week. And then there are those who just couldn't care less and are simply counting the seconds until the bell rings. You've got students who adore the teacher and read the books just to impress her or prove themselves, rather than having any genuine passion for the literature itself. Or maybe someone truly loves books but can't stand the teacher to save their life, so they just "go on strike" when it comes to the assigned reading. It seems a bit strange to me that, given your background in psychology, you aren't seeing these nuances and are still pressing for an answer to a question that doesn't have one. There just isn't a solution that satisfies everyone: a world where the book is read, the project is finished with actual effort and without parents stepping in, no one finds the reading or the writing tedious, and no one ends up hating the book, the teacher, or the subject for the rest of their lives.
Susan James went ahead and threw everything at the wall to see what sticks, I suppose, because it’s all very easy to preach about personalized learning when you aren't actually managing a room full of kids. In a class of 25 students, it’s just not really feasible to tackle every single reading assignment in 25 unique ways just so every child can reach their absolute maximum potential and feel perfectly satisfied with the process and the outcome.🙄
Susan James said:This is such a lovely post! 😍
By the way, back in high school, I had this absolutely brilliant female teacher at HP. We didn't have to write essays in these massive notebooks or bring anything in to hand over for grading. Instead, we'd just have these deep discussions about the book in class (not necessarily "creative" writing, but you couldn't just fake it by reading a summary). She wouldn't waste our time with trivial stuff like what color someone's dress was, but she would push us to connect the themes to art movements, music, or literature... and she loved making connections to other books and even current events. 😍 (That was way back in the last century. Back before schools were all about "preparing you for life." It really all comes down to the professor.)
I wasn't a huge fan of reading only the required books either. Sometimes, after finishing an assignment, I'd jump straight into something else just to wash away that mindless feeling. 🤣
I think you might be contradicting yourself a little here. Just because you found that approach brilliant doesn't mean it worked for everyone, and I'm fairly certain some of your fellow teachers probably hated all that interdisciplinary stuff. They likely thought the work itself was terrible, or the historical movements were irrelevant, or the musical connections were just noise, and that current events didn't matter at all. Those types of people probably would have given anything if that "brilliant" teacher had just let them film a quick video clip referencing *The Great Gatsby* or put together a simple poster of Dante’s Inferno instead.
rowdypanther12 said:Sorry, do you realize that neither I nor monstera are actually talking about grades? We couldn't care less about grades. Our focus is on the quality of this learning method, which looks great on paper but is a disaster in practice—or at best, entirely dependent on the level of support and resources a kid has available to them.
Look, just write to the school board. They’re the ones parents will actually listen to anyway.🤣 The truth is, this way of teaching isn't even "great" in theory; it’s actually pretty far from it, I suppose. for this kind of project-based approach to actually work effectively, you'd need a perfect storm of conditions: an incredibly driven and self-motivated student, someone who already has a solid grasp of the fundamentals before they even start the task, a kid capable of drawing their own conclusions, someone who actually wants to connect different subjects together, equal access to tools and tech for everyone, a teacher who knows how to guide without overstepping, and—this might be the big one—parents who stay completely out of the process while the kid works. since most of those things are basically non-existent in our public school system, I guess you end up with nothing much useful for the real world.😳
I suppose those self-righteous types will probably start telling you that you're being boring now, too. Whatever. The truth is just the truth, whether people actually enjoy hearing it or not, I guess.🤷